CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[LoneLaugher]

Hmm. No interest? Or no brave souls willing to take a stand? Or just nobody wants to be the first response? Come on. At least some of that strikes a responsive chord with somebody.

The entire list of suggestions that "liberals" are asked to accept is bogus and assumes that liberals don't have any friggen idea
how to raise children.

Why would anyone entertain the discussion?

Bogus? So you don't accept any of them as valid goals to shoot for? (And we wonder why this country is so screwed up right now.) But there's apparently another vote for 'hell no, I won't compromise as I would rather the country be screwed up rather than agree we need to do some things differently.

--kids need role models that demonstrate some of the best to which we can aspire instead of heaping admiration and fame, making heroes out of, or generating sympathy for those who promote hate, anger, violence, and lawless behavior.


Liberals already agree with this sentiment. Bogus.

 

[LoneLaugher]

-kids need to be taught personal responsibility and accountability in which the norm is educating yourself, staying away from illegal substances and activities, meriting a good reputation, learning a trade, getting married before having kids, and contributing to your family, your community, your country. Such people are rarely involved in any kind of bad acts.

Liberals already agree with this sentiment. Bogus.

 

[LoneLaugher]

kids need video games, television programs, and movies that promote real heroism, good triumphing over evil, and rejection of violence except in self defense. When video games have the player having to do bad, even evil things to win, how can that not translate how they relate to their real world? When what passes for entertainment promotes the worst kind of violence, promiscuity, immorality, and sympathy for the bad guys, it is no wonder that children become desensitized to violence or the pain of others and see bad acts as glorious acts. It all is teaching the kids and it is invariable that some of them will be motivated to act on it.

There has never been any proof that video games lead anyone to become violent. Japanese kids have every violent video game there is and
they don't go around shooting up schools and concerts. Bogus.

 

[2aguy]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.

That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

 

[2aguy]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

And then the 4th ignored Caetano....again....after they were slapped for trying to ban stun guns....here is Caetano v. Massachusetts...

There is no way that any real justice could say that AR-15s can be banned....they are the most common rifle in the United States and are used for common, and lawful purposes....


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

Our left wing UN-Constitutional scholar, clayton, pretends these Supreme Court rulings do not exist, and that they do not protect AR-15s or semi automatic weapons...

 

[2aguy]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

Heller actually addresses that argument specifically....

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[task0778]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

 

[2aguy]

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

 

[task0778]

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

 

[2aguy]

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

Sorry, none of what you posted on UBCs makes a difference to criminals or mass shooters, it just doesn't.

All mass shooters except for 1 or 2 got their guns legally, through gun stores...that means they went through background checks...federal background checks the same check you would go through for a private sale.....the others got their guns illegally or by killing someone.

Criminals use straw buyers....who can already pass background checks, so they will pass a UBC for a private sale......so right there, your point is done. As far as criminals who buy from people willing to sell without a background check, they are doing that already, the girlfriends, sisters, mothers, grandmothers of criminals who straw buy for their criminal boyfriend......the problem is not that we don't catch these people..the problem is that prosecutors do not want to prosecute the single mother of 4 kids who had to buy the gun for the gang banger baby daddy or he would beat her or kill her.....

And on top of that...I list stories all the time of straw buyers getting caught through current police and federal gun stings....

They do this using the old fashioned techniques of "snitches." So we don't need UBCs to do this, we are already doing it.

And I am telling you, the only reason the anti gun extremist leaders want UBCs is to be in a position to demand gun registration.....that's it...it is the only reason since criminals and mass shooters will not be effected by UBCs....

And according to Murdoch v. Pennsylvania...you cannot charge a fee for the exercise of a Right...so a fee to do a background check would be unConstitutional in a real court.....

Here.....some articles to read....

Straw Purchasing Guns: US Needs to Take It Seriously | [site:name] | National Review

Wisconsin isn’t alone in its nonchalance. California normally treats straw purchases as misdemeanors or minor infractions. Even as the people of Baltimore suffer horrific levels of violence, Maryland classifies the crime as a misdemeanor, too. Straw buying is a felony in progressive Connecticut, albeit one in the second-least-serious order of felonies. It is classified as a serious crime in Illinois (Class 2 felony), but police rarely (meaning “almost never”) go after the nephews and girlfriends with clean records who provide Chicago’s diverse and sundry gangsters with their weapons. In Delaware, it’s a Class F felony, like forging a check. In Oregon, it’s a misdemeanor.

--------

I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.

In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Read mor

Straw purchaser with 4 felony gun charges will not get jail time

A Chicago-area woman arrested last year for her role in illegally selling guns to prohibited buyers, some with gang affiliations, was sentenced to probation and community service last week.

Simone Mousheh, 23, of the Chicago suburb of Mount Prospect, will have to complete 15 days of community service in the Cook County Sheriff’s Work Alternative Program and 12 months probation after pleading guilty to illegal transfer of firearms last week, as reported by the Daily Herald.

Mousheh was arrested last September and charged with four felonies after an investigation by the Chicago Police Firearm Investigation Team concluded she had bought handguns through the benefit of her state-issued Firearms Owners Identification card and then illegally resold them.

One gun, a Glock 23 Mousheh later reported as stolen, was recovered by police from a juvenile offender on the West Side. Another Glock, a Model 22, was sold to Jayson Barber nine days after she bought it. Mousheh knew at the time that Barber was on probation for domestic battery, and did not have a FOID card which is needed to possess a handgun in Illinois. Police later determined Barber had gang ties. The Glock was the second gun she sold to Barber.

Over a six-month period, Mousheh purchased four Glocks and put a $1,000 deposit on an FN 5.7 pistol. Police were only able to recover the Glock from Barber as well as one other gun and a box of 5.7x28mm ammunition from her home.





ATF Lets Straw Purchasing Violent Criminal Walk In WV

Travis Bishop has been working the past 13 years as a firearms dealer in West Virginia at Tannerman’s Weapon Systems. The store is not only his passion, but also a beacon of hope in his community.
He has put on four food drives in the past 10 years, he’s active in his church through ministry work, he has helped countless heroin addicts though outreach programs, and recently helped 25-year old Britney Bretfield, a customer at Tannerman’s and an avid shotgun trap shooter suffering from cancer, by raising $5500 to help offset her medical bills.
This man goes above and beyond, so when people heard he alerted authorities to break up a straw purchase in his store, it was no surprise. The surprise came after the individuals were spotted in a local liquor store only 14 hours after being arrested.
On December 10th, Travis was working in his store as usual, when two individuals entered his store looking for a handgun. After approaching the two, asking if there was anything he could help them find, the woman indicated she was looking for a “gun with a beam”.

After talking with them only a few short minutes, he alerted his store employees to go into “straw purchase” mode. This slows things down behind the counter and allows them time to further assess the situation and call law enforcement if necessary.
Continuing to press for information, Travis asked if they had ever owned or handled handguns before and they both indicated, ‘oh yeah. yeah, we have guns.’ but neither one was able to say what kind or model they were. After perusing the store talking about several options and deciding on a handgun, they said, ‘yeah, we’ll take that one.’
Confused, Travis asked, “What do you mean ‘you’ll both take that one’? Which one of you is going to be purchasing the gun?” to which she replied, “Oh, he’s gonna get it, I’m gonna pay for it.” So he takes them to the counter to start the process and asked, “Which one of you specifically is buying the gun?” Again she answered, “Well the gun is for him, but I’m gonna pay for it.”

 

[2aguy]

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

The original gun registration scheme.....of course, from New york....to protect political leg breakers from law abiding citizens......

Why Background Registration Checks Suck | Op-ed Articles

Objection Two: Abuse of the System… Again
New York City has witnessed just about every form of abuse, and will make for a good case study....

n 1967, then-mayor John Lindsay signed into law a long gun (rifle or shotgun) registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. From that point forward, anyone seeking to possess any rifle or shotgun within the city limits merely had to register it by make, model and serial number to obtain a permit for legal ownership. The fee was set at very “reasonable and common sense” $3. Gun owners were promised that registration rolls would never be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens. Bill sponsor City Councilman Theodore Weiss vowed that that the fee would never be raised, and that “the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law.”

Immediately after passage of the law, Mayor Lindsay proposed amendments to increase the fee to $25. As of this writing, the cost is approximately $230 ($140 for the application fee and $90 to process fingerprints). So much for a politician’s promise.

Then, in 1991, Mayor David Dinkins signed a City Council bill banning the possession of many semi-automatic rifles, claiming they were a now considered “assault weapons,” a term recently defined but now codified in NYC Administrative code, S 10-303.1. The registration rolls established in 1967 – the same rolls that “would not be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens” - were used to identify the owners of such arms, which had been legal just the day before. Another promise broken.

2,340 citizens received letters demanding the forced sale or surrender of the guns. A Staten Island man who announced his refusal to comply was the subject of a police raid. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

In 2006, NYC Administrative code S 10-306 was added, outlawing any “ammunition feeding device greater than five rounds.” This further reduced the number of formerly-legal rifles that could continue to be possessed, but no real enforcement effort was attempted until the passage of the statewide “SAFE Act” law in 2013. Then, once again, the records that “would not be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens” were consulted and “sell or surrender the guns we know you own” were sent out to New York City residents.

Guns were being confiscated – again – even if doors weren’t being kicked in.

 

[2aguy]

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

There actually is one more reason the anti gunners want Universal Background Checks...to harass normal gun owners simply using guns...

Symbolic Gesture Illustrates Idiocy of Background Check Law

One universal Background check that is already law....

The Oregon Firearms Safety Act (OFSA), enacted in 2015, follows the template of such “universal background check” laws and initiatives. The OFSA applies when any change of possession of a gun occurs, even if ownership or title remains the same, by defining a “transfer” as any “delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm.”

It prohibits a gun sale or “transfer” between persons who are not federally licensed, unless the transaction is completed through a licensed gun dealer. Both parties “must appear in person before a gun dealer, with the firearm, and request that the gun dealer perform a criminal background check on the transferee.”

What does this mean in reality..........

Dealers are authorized to charge fees for “facilitating” these transactions, which means a loan of a gun costs the lender or borrower twice over (once for the loan, and again when the gun is returned).

A person who fails to comply with these requirements commits a criminal offense –a felony if the person has a previous conviction.

The OFSA has limited exceptions, including temporary transfers between specified family members (but not in-laws), for law enforcement officers (only “while that person is acting within the scope of official duties”), or to prevent death or serious physical injury (but the threat must be “imminent” and the gun must be returned “immediately”).


This is the funny part......one of the first people to get caught up in this law....is a rabid, anti gunner minister who won a gun in raffle that he planned to destroy....he then went on to break this law...unintentionally.......but he should be punished to the full extent of this law...because he supports this foolishness....

Reverend Lucas, a former lawyer and lobbyist, purchased $3,000 worth of tickets for a softball team’s raffle of an AR-15 rifle, seeking to win the rifle so he could destroy it in a symbolic act. After winning the raffle, Rev.

Lucas went through the mandatory background check process at a licensed gun dealer before claiming the gun.

He reportedly then gave the gun to a parishioner to store while he decided what to do with it.

Regardless of motive or intent, the “delivery of a firearm” to another person for storage is still a “transfer” governed by the OFSA.

According to news reports, local police have asked the Oregon State Police to investigate the matter. If convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the OFSA, Rev. Lucas could face a maximum fine of $6,250 and up to a year in jail.

As a law abiding citizen...I hope the minister is punished to the full extent of this law......I hope he enjoys prison food......

Better him than someone else.......

And this is another part of the real intent behind the law...to harrass normal gun owners in common gun activities that before were completely innocent and legal.....and now are fraught with legal peril......

Similarly, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issued a guidance concerning “transfers” during hunter education classes. Resting on a convoluted interpretation of the initiative law, this concluded that volunteer instructors were “law enforcement” and exempted from the background check requirements, but only “when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority.” However, student-to-student transfers of firearms would not qualify under that exemption, prompting a suggestion that instructors use only air rifles or facsimiles that did not meet the definition of a “firearm” under the initiative.

So.........uninformed people have no idea what the true intent of Universal Background checks are......first...to harrass normal gun owners and to make any innocent, common gun activity legally risky, in order to discourage gun ownership and use.....

The primary reason for background checks......to get gun registration.......this is the crown jewel of the anti gun movement........

 

[Foxfyre]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

Heller actually addresses that argument specifically....

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

And I don't have much to quarrel with re Heller or anybody else who argues that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no authority to infringe on the people's right to bear arms.

Where the federal government has gone wrong, however, and that would include SCOTUS, is in the unsupportable assumption that the federal government is given authority to dictate to the states what their respective laws will be or to impose any law upon the states that the Constitution does not specifically authorize.

Anybody reading even the cursory opinion of the Founders, i.e. those who forged the documents that would eventually be reflected in the Constitution, would have to see that the intent was that the central government would have no authority other than what was necessary for the separate states to function as one nation and to prevent the states from doing violence to each other. They certainly did not think the federal government could dictate whether the saloon owner could collect the sidearms at the door or that the school marm had to be armed or protest that the laws in the various states and local communities regarding gun ownership were frequently so different.

In the late 18th Century, 19th Century, and at least to the mid 20th Century, some places were wide open re guns; others more restrictive. But in both cases school children didn't worry about somebody coming in and gunning down everybody in sight. I grew up in a time in which there were usually some guns in the schoolyard and sometimes in the school too, but school children didn't worry about somebody coming in and gunning down everybody in sight.

And while I think some regulation of what and where weapons are allowed can be appropriate, the bigger picture suggests to me that looking to gun control as the solution is very short sighted and most likely entirely ineffective to solve the problem.

But I would sure agree to some demands of those who insist guns are the problem if they would agree to work with me and others on creating a culture that doesn't breed mass murderers.

 

[oldsoul]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To me, at least, this is pretty easy. The intent was to ensure the government could not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning (bearing) arms with which they could mount an effective resistance to an oppressive (or tyrannical) government. Therefore, as with all rights enshrined in the COTUS, if it does not infringe on another's' rights, it is within the scope of protection. Using this logic, it would be within one's rights to own (bear) any and all weapons. The brandishing, or use thereof is another matter altogether, and a matter for legislation and prosecution.

For example, using your example of "machine guns" (AKA fully automatic weapons), it would be within one's rights to own a BAR. Brandishing it to initiate an aggressive act/threaten, would already be illegal, as you are threatening to deprive someone of their right to life. Using it, for purposes other than for target shooting, hunting, self-defense, etc., would also be illegal, as it is reasonable to believe that you intend to deprive someone of life.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

I wholeheartedly agree. We are in a very sad state when 2 out of 3 people cannot even name the three branches of the federal government. Something that should be basic civics, even for a 3rd grader.

 

[Foxfyre]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To me, at least, this is pretty easy. The intent was to ensure the government could not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning (bearing) arms with which they could mount an effective resistance to an oppressive (or tyrannical) government. Therefore, as with all rights enshrined in the COTUS, if it does not infringe on another's' rights, it is within the scope of protection. Using this logic, it would be within one's rights to own (bear) any and all weapons. The brandishing, or use thereof is another matter altogether, and a matter for legislation and prosecution.

For example, using your example of "machine guns" (AKA fully automatic weapons), it would be within one's rights to own a BAR. Brandishing it to initiate an aggressive act/threaten, would already be illegal, as you are threatening to deprive someone of their right to life. Using it, for purposes other than for target shooting, hunting, self-defense, etc., would also be illegal, as it is reasonable to believe that you intend to deprive someone of life.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

I wholeheartedly agree. We are in a very sad state when 2 out of 3 people cannot even name the three branches of the federal government. Something that should be basic civics, even for a 3rd grader.

As for what arms that the people are allowed to bear under the Constitution, you raise a good point that we are not to be denied the right to defend ourselves, even against our own government should it rise up against the people to do violence in an unlawful manner.

But I also balance that against a guy who often got blind stupid drunk, probably including more than one substance, and totally out of his mind on weekends and once decided to do some target practice in his back yard with his perfectly legal and honorably acquired deer rifle. Thank God nobody was injured or killed but he put some inadvertent bullets into some of his neighbor's houses. The police took care of it arriving about 20 minutes or so after the shooting binge started. I was told that he and his moved away after he spent awhile in jail, and he apparently checked himself into a rehab center and got dried out.

But what if he was our neighbor and he had a machine gun or a missile launcher or a Bradley tank in the back yard on those nights he was literally out of his mind? I think I would not be comfortable with that at all.

There are always some wrinkles in the debate. But I honestly believe returning the American society to a homogenous people sharing mostly common values of personal responsibility, accountability, and working out their differences without violence, we would not have enough of a gun problem to worry about.

 

[oldsoul]

And yet they specifically protect in Heller those weapons in common use for self defense and sporting purposes......and since the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most common weapons in use....they are Constitutionally protected from the attacks by anti gunners.....right?

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

Ok, so you clearly laid out your case for UBCs. I disagree, but that is another matter. Here's the thing, It's been illegal to murder since the inception of this country. That does not stop people from murdering. Sure, it may discourage some, and imprison those convicted. How many lives have been made whole again though this system? Not one. Simply put, it's because prevention is the only way.

Prevention is key, on that I think we agree. Would UBCs prevent "nut jobs" from getting guns? Maybe. You know what, I'll even say in some cases it would. However, a determined person can still get a gun. That would be made exponentially more difficult if we had some kind of psychiatric hold laws. Something like this:

I, and several others, believe one of my relatives/friends is a threat to themselves or others. We go before a judge and testify as such, providing evidence. The judge then has the authority, if deemed appropriate, to legally compel this person to undergo a psych eval in a secured facility. The doctors then make a determination on the individual's mental state and report back to the court. The court then decides if this person can be released, and under what conditions.

Does it take itime? Sure, so does doing a murder investigation. Will it stop all murders? Of course not, but it does follow the intent of our framers that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away without DUE PROCESS.

What do you think? Where is the flaw? What am I missing?

 

[task0778]

So far as I know, the Supreme Court has never ruled on whether an AR-15 and similar guns are Constitutionally protected or not, but some 4 US Court of Appeals have ruled that they are not, and have left standing state laws that permit banning them.

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

Ok, so you clearly laid out your case for UBCs. I disagree, but that is another matter. Here's the thing, It's been illegal to murder since the inception of this country. That does not stop people from murdering. Sure, it may discourage some, and imprison those convicted. How many lives have been made whole again though this system? Not one. Simply put, it's because prevention is the only way.

Prevention is key, on that I think we agree. Would UBCs prevent "nut jobs" from getting guns? Maybe. You know what, I'll even say in some cases it would. However, a determined person can still get a gun. That would be made exponentially more difficult if we had some kind of psychiatric hold laws. Something like this:

I, and several others, believe one of my relatives/friends is a threat to themselves or others. We go before a judge and testify as such, providing evidence. The judge then has the authority, if deemed appropriate, to legally compel this person to undergo a psych eval in a secured facility. The doctors then make a determination on the individual's mental state and report back to the court. The court then decides if this person can be released, and under what conditions.

Does it take itime? Sure, so does doing a murder investigation. Will it stop all murders? Of course not, but it does follow the intent of our framers that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away without DUE PROCESS.

What do you think? Where is the flaw? What am I missing?

Was wondering at what point in your process do you suspend the individual's right to buy a gun. Do you also confiscate the weapons he already has? I can go along with your idea of psychiatric hold laws, but I'm not sure we have the facilities or the means to do this for everybody that might need to be held.

 

[Foxfyre]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.

 

[oldsoul]

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

The wrinkle in that argument is that the Founders had no way to envision Bradley tanks or machine guns or shouldered rocket launchers. For them at the time the Constitution was written, 'arms' were swords, knives, pistols and long guns, single shot at that plus some primitive mortars, howitzers, and cannon. Just as when they wrote there should be no abridgment of free speech or religion, they could not have envisioned 50 watt radio stations that can obliterate their weaker competition unless there is regulation of the airways, or the ability to send text and pictures from around the world to be viewed by people in their own living rooms and that resulted in regulation of what legal content--no incitement to riot, et al--could be transmitted and/or what would be considered decent content. They could not have imagined a Jim Jones who would so corrupt religious faith that he poisoned 900 of his followers on a single day or the necessity for law enforcement to have ability to intervene in something like that.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To me, at least, this is pretty easy. The intent was to ensure the government could not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning (bearing) arms with which they could mount an effective resistance to an oppressive (or tyrannical) government. Therefore, as with all rights enshrined in the COTUS, if it does not infringe on another's' rights, it is within the scope of protection. Using this logic, it would be within one's rights to own (bear) any and all weapons. The brandishing, or use thereof is another matter altogether, and a matter for legislation and prosecution.

For example, using your example of "machine guns" (AKA fully automatic weapons), it would be within one's rights to own a BAR. Brandishing it to initiate an aggressive act/threaten, would already be illegal, as you are threatening to deprive someone of their right to life. Using it, for purposes other than for target shooting, hunting, self-defense, etc., would also be illegal, as it is reasonable to believe that you intend to deprive someone of life.

The struggle for us now is to honor and respect and enforce the original intent of the Constitution without using it to justify intolerable behavior made possible by modern inventions and technology.

To many conservatives I think won't allow 'intent' to be a factor when interpreting the words of the Constitution. And too many liberals want to twist/misrepresent and/or ignore intent and sometimes what the Constitution says period.

What we need is more education and training in Constitutional scholarship. . .and. . .

What we need is a national conversation that is thoughtful and focused on finding solutions to the problem instead of just more finger pointing, accusing, ideological denial, trolling, insulting, and casting blame and/or just one more legal band aid applied.

I wholeheartedly agree. We are in a very sad state when 2 out of 3 people cannot even name the three branches of the federal government. Something that should be basic civics, even for a 3rd grader.

As for what arms that the people are allowed to bear under the Constitution, you raise a good point that we are not to be denied the right to defend ourselves, even against our own government should it rise up against the people to do violence in an unlawful manner.

But I also balance that against a guy who often got blind stupid drunk, probably including more than one substance, and totally out of his mind on weekends and once decided to do some target practice in his back yard with his perfectly legal and honorably acquired deer rifle. Thank God nobody was injured or killed but he put some inadvertent bullets into some of his neighbor's houses. The police took care of it arriving about 20 minutes or so after the shooting binge started. I was told that he and his moved away after he spent awhile in jail, and he apparently checked himself into a rehab center and got dried out.

But what if he was our neighbor and he had a machine gun or a missile launcher or a Bradley tank in the back yard on those nights he was literally out of his mind? I think I would not be comfortable with that at all.

There are always some wrinkles in the debate. But I honestly believe returning the American society to a homogenous people sharing mostly common values of personal responsibility, accountability, and working out their differences without violence, we would not have enough of a gun problem to worry about.

I would bet that this was not a one time occurance. Assuming it was not, I refer you to the proposal I layed out in post #296, and ask for your reaction. Could my proposal have prevented such a situation? Would it cause you to be more comfortable with people having weapons that can do significant damage in very short periods of time?

Of course there still needs to be restrictions on HOW one uses weapons from of ALL kinds. I believe we, as a society, need to think twice about restricting WHAT weapons one can own. Lest we lose more rights...

 

[oldsoul]

Heller clearly states that guns that are in common use are protected......the 4th Circuit completely ignored not only Heller, but Caetano, and Miller.....they should have been slapped down by the Supreme Court, but the SJWs on the court want guns banned regardless of the Constitution....

From Heller....

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
------------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”

State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----

Maybe so, but it's hard to argue with the 4 US Courts of Appeal who said in essence that the 2nd Amendment does not extend to AR-15s and the like, and there's no Court at that level that has ruled otherwise. That's all I'm saying, I don't support a federal ban on them myself.

I could live with the universal background checks that the Dems want though, or are they asking for more than I thought?

The 4th completely ignored all of the previous Supreme Court rulings.....they are wrong on all levels, so no, it isn't hard to argue with them since the argument they make doesn't even come close to being Constitutional or even backed by legal precedent......I just quoted Heller, Caetano and Miller...and they ignored all 3.........

Why would you support a universal background check?

Criminals do not go through them, and mass shooters pass them.

Criminals use straw buyers to buy guns from gun stores...that means their straw buyers can pass any federal background check...that means they will pass a background check on a private sale too.......

Criminals will also steal guns, which goes around any and all background checks.

Criminals do not buy guns from private sellers, because they don't know if they are cops or federal agents, they use the straw buyers because they are friends and family, they also buy from other criminals who use straw buyers or steal the guns....

The only reason anti gunners want universal background checks is because it gives them the power to come back and demand universal gun registration.......they will say universal background checks do not work unless we know who originally owned the gun...and we cant do that unless all guns are registered....

Universal background checks are just a way to get to registration......

Ok, your knowledge in this area probably exceeds mine, but here's the thing: UBCs would not make it impossible for a criminal or nutcase to acquire a gun but it does make it harder. How many people know somebody on the black market or somebody who will sell them an AR-15 in a private sale? In most if not all of the mass shootings we read about in the papers we eventually find out where the weapons that were used got into the hands of the shooter/killer. If you're a private citizen and there is a UBC req't to sell your AR-15 to somebody and you do not require that person to get a background check through an authorized dealer, then presumably you're in big legal trouble, no? A UBC law would have to have a penalty under the law for that. So what if it costs an extra $25 bucks or so to pay the dealer to do the check, what's that compared to the several hundred bucks you have to pay to the seller?

As for gun registration that's a separate issue, you don't automatically get that as part of the deal IMHO. I wouldn't support gun registration but that's not a reason to deny UBCs.

Ok, so you clearly laid out your case for UBCs. I disagree, but that is another matter. Here's the thing, It's been illegal to murder since the inception of this country. That does not stop people from murdering. Sure, it may discourage some, and imprison those convicted. How many lives have been made whole again though this system? Not one. Simply put, it's because prevention is the only way.

Prevention is key, on that I think we agree. Would UBCs prevent "nut jobs" from getting guns? Maybe. You know what, I'll even say in some cases it would. However, a determined person can still get a gun. That would be made exponentially more difficult if we had some kind of psychiatric hold laws. Something like this:

I, and several others, believe one of my relatives/friends is a threat to themselves or others. We go before a judge and testify as such, providing evidence. The judge then has the authority, if deemed appropriate, to legally compel this person to undergo a psych eval in a secured facility. The doctors then make a determination on the individual's mental state and report back to the court. The court then decides if this person can be released, and under what conditions.

Does it take itime? Sure, so does doing a murder investigation. Will it stop all murders? Of course not, but it does follow the intent of our framers that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away without DUE PROCESS.

What do you think? Where is the flaw? What am I missing?

Was wondering at what point in your process do you suspend the individual's right to buy a gun. Do you also confiscate the weapons he already has? I can go along with your idea of psychiatric hold laws, but I'm not sure we have the facilities or the means to do this for everybody that might need to be held.

As for confiscation, the court would have that power, under certain circumstances. However, compelled transfer would be much preferable to me, especially if only temporary.

As for the facilities, that I do not know. I am suggesting a long term solution, so that is something that would need to be addressed. A phase-in period may need to be implemented to allow time for facilities to become available (built/retrofitted/expanded). As far as who would own/operate them, I would prefer non-profit organisations, if that is not feasible, then for profit would be better than government owned/operated. I would be willing to discuss all options though.